Posted on 02/14/2013 6:21:43 AM PST by KeyLargo
Edited on 02/14/2013 9:25:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Police in Christopher Dorner standoff launched incendiary tear gas into cabin
By CHUCK BENNETT and DAVID K. LI From Post Wires Last Updated: 6:14 AM, February 14, 2013
Murderous ex-cop Christopher Jordan Dorner wanted to go out in a blaze of glory — and the sheriff’s deputies who surrounded his California mountain hideout provided the flames.
The San Bernardino County cops torched the wooden cabin with highly flammable “incendiary tear gas” as Dorner took refuge Tuesday, apparently burning him to a crisp.
“Burn this mf--er!” one officer shouted as they had Dorner — who had earlier killed a deputy and seriously wounded another — pinned down in the cabin, according to police radio transmissions.
Amid sounds of gunfire, voices can be head shouting, “Burn it down!” and “Shoot the gas!”
Excerpt, read more at nypost
By way of example, and I don't care to dialog with you, so take this as a rhetorical question, do you think Dorner was crazy to the extent it would justify avoiding prison, that is, using an insanity defense?
Seen that too SargeK.
Neither extreme is helpful as you said.
But to claim “Oh, support for Dorner is not there!” is to stick ones head in the sand on this one.
And there are posters trying to claim such.
What are they supposed to do? Let him escape to a designated cabin where they have permission from the owner to burn it down in the ensuing firefight?
I imagine the owners will get fully compensated. I will be irate if anything less results. But the SBSD did not choose the battlefield. Dorner did, and they had to fight him at that cabin.
I dont know who let these trolls in here, but they are out in force since the Dorner situation.
If they'd mounted a loudspeaker on an armored truck, rolled up, told him he had 5 minutes to come out or be burned out, burned him out when he didn't come out, and told the public that's exatly what they did, I'd be totally cool with the whole thing because Dorner was a POS who needed killing. My problem is there's no real indication they did that and it looks a great deal like they out and out lied about their reason for using the incendiary gas.
It’s possible if the implement a complete ban on all guns. Will you go to your neighbors aid when they kick down his door?
Earth berm homes are cheap and pretty secure against fire or gunfire. Plus, you get the added bonus of energy efficiency :)
I don’t think he’d have even received a trial.
His behavior and actions are not those of a sane person.
The courts would appoint one or two psychologists to check him out, one would give one report, the other the exact opposite.
That’s a given.
And the left would have been standing there cheering him on like Mumia Abu Jamal.
A total media circus in other words.
That tell you anything about what the run up to his trial would be like?
Whether he was psychotic or not would be brushed aside, ignored, buried.
He’d be rebranded a hero by the press, and we’d never know the full depth of what was in his head.
As for people trying to say he wasn’t a kook, they didn’t pay attention to what he said himself or his actions.
And considering how he went after a mans daughter and then taunted him, obsessed over perceived sleights from gradeschool, saw bigotry under every rock and behind every tree no matter what, yeah he likely was criminally insane.
Of course, they’d ask him if he understood the difference betwen right and wrong.
His answer to that questioning would be the decider in whether he received his trial.
Really? When I read what I posted I point out that you have no proof he wrote it.
But maybe you have a problem with basic logic.
You have no Proof that Dorner shot a single person. All you have is what the media and the government claims happened. And again I will point out these same people claimed that a huge riot got out of hand in Benghazi because of a youtube video that ended up killing Our Ambassador and 3 other people.
You go on and on claiming you have undeniable facts when all you have is heresay.
Thus your argument is invalid.
The best you can do is state that "The Government claims Dorner killed people and wrote a Manifesto." And anyone who takes what they say as the Gospel without independently verified proof needs their head examined!
“How can you prove that HE did it?” -YOUR post 217
Yes, you’re going to claim he didn’t write his manifesto.
That IS what you are saying.
Clearly, you missed my point. Oh well. Have a nice day.
No, I didn’t miss your point.
You missed mine.
I was told that people were NOT supporting Dorner on FR.
Yes, there were posts in suport of him.
To claim he wasn’t a kook is to support him.
I did answer your question.
And told you what would have happened if he’d lived.
Wow, you've completely obliterated my point. The employment status of the people who were held at gunpoint is much more important than the fact that Dorner held them at gunpoint.
Yes, you’re going to claim he didn’t write his manifesto. That IS what you are saying."
No once again you fail Basic logic. I made no claim whether he did it our not. I asked you how can you PROVE he did it.
BTW you have yet to do just that.
You are confused on my position on the Manifesto so I will tell you what it is. I can't prove he did or he did not write it. And just because the Government claims he did does not mean it is proved.
You claim He DID write it. Present your proof.
Perhaps your links aren't going where you want them to. I saw nothing that you have indicated when clicking those links.
I understand and respect your point. I really do, but only about an hour had passed after the perp had holed up and was surrounded on all sides by some 2000 officers. I don’t see him being able to go anywhere, but that is just my armchair opinion and not worth much.
In other words, he was in the house about an hour. No shots had been fired in that hour from what I heard on the scanner. They had armored vehicles on scene and began tearing down the walls of the cabin in that hour. We all know now,or should, the reported scanner audios of the plan to burn him out, etc.
Reports of shots fired from the house came after the fire was well under way and then were followed by reports of ammo cooking off. How can we be sure the reports of shots fired at that point was not just ammo cooking off? We can’t. Does it matter legally? I don’t know.
just for the record, I come from a long line of private property rights and limited government advocates and so I am admittedly biased in favor of those rights.
That's a matter of opinion. It is hardly "expressing sympathy and support for Dorner" as you claimed.
I still adhere to my point of view that you are out of line in casting aspersions against Marcella, until you have a handle on how Marcella intended to apply the word "crazy."
-- To claim he wasn't a kook is to support him. --
Actually, I see it the opposite way, but that's because my definition of "kook" is different from yours. Not to say that Dorner was justified, he wasn't. He acted in a depraved way, indifferent as to human life. Not all criminals are insane; and by definition, an insane person is not a criminal. To claim he wasn't a kook is just arguing over the definition of kook. Maybe you get my point, by now, maybe not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986354/posts
Gee, seems the left tried real hard to cover up what he wrote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986354/posts
Gee, seems the left tried real hard to cover up what he wrote.
And once again your post is claiming he didn’t write it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.